Local News

Suspect in SCF murder argues murder, assault charges

Paul Farley accused of strangling cellmate

STERLING -- An inmate accused of strangling his cellmate to death at Sterling Correctional Facility in June 13, 2012, argued his charges Wednesday, with his attorney saying that his actions didn't constitute second degree murder or first degree assault.

Paul Farley had already admitted to killing cellmate James Roemer, the court learned, but Chief Deputy Public Defender Brian Connors said the circumstances behind Roemer's death were more closely aligned with manslaughter. He also said Farley hadn't committed first degree assault because he hadn't acted with "universal malice," which is defined as acting without knowing or caring who may be the victim.

Chief District Judge Michael Singer sounded skeptical that the arguments would stick, but delayed making a decision so he could further review the arguments.

According to District Attorney Brittny Lewton, Farley had been seeking a plea up to the day of his hearing; his original offer was for 20 years, though Connors gave a counter offer. But Farley had requested a preliminary hearing on Wednesday before appearing in court, which Lewton said cut off any chance of further investigations.

That led to a cross-examination of Criminal Investigator Larry Graham, with the Inspector General's Office, who had investigated Roemer's murder.

Advertisement

Graham told the court he was present when Roemer, a 35 year old serving time for criminal trespass out of Montezuma County, was found in the cell he shared with Farley with a plastic bag over his head and no vital signs.

He said Farley, who was quiet and cooperative, had initially reported that Roemer "appear(ed) to be dead" over the intercom button in his cell. He declined to answer questions, but made a comment along the lines of, "This is what ad seg (administrative segregation) does to you. You lose your conscience."

Graham said Farley had previously done time for manslaughter in Arizona for assisting in an inmate's suicide, allowing a man in a nearby cell to place a noose around his neck before pulling it tight.

But he and Roemer had few recorded instances of contention, and none in the day before the incident. (One correctional officer said the two had agreed to a cell swap, but nothing could be found saying Roemer asked to be moved.) In fact, Farley had reportedly been in a good mood on June 13, meeting his case manager twice that day to discuss details of a proxy wedding. Roemer, who met with an SCF teacher in the afternoon before his death, hadn't expressed any concerns about Farley, either.

According to Graham, Farley had admitted to killing Roemer in a meeting with him and Lewton in October. He told them in a recorded interview that Roemer had made some type of "smart alec remark," which led to an argument that turned physical.

Farley said he "snapped" and that the incident got out of hand when he started choking Roemer and Roemer, in return, had starting poking at Farley's eyes. Farley continued choking Roemer until he lost consciousness, he said, and proceeded to put a bag over Roemer's head until he stopped breathing. He later said he didn't know what to do to keep Roemer from poking his eyes and that he wanted to "incapacitate," not kill him.

"If I feel like I'm threatened, I do what I have to do to survive," Farley said, according to interview excerpts read aloud by Connors. "I flipped out, I freaked out. ... I wish to god it didn't happen. I lost control."

Some inmates reported hearing the incident, but there were no eyewitnesses.

Connors said that the charges against Farley were false because they suggested he put the lives of many in danger, not a particular person.

Lewton argued that calling the act manslaughter wasn't appropriate, and that saying the act was "simply reckless is a misstatement."

Connors wanted the court to consider whether it was Farley's intent to cause serious bodily injury in the first place.

Farley will reappear for a status or arraignment hearing on May 22 at 9:30 a.m.

Article Comments

We reserve the right to remove any comment that violates our ground rules, is spammy, NSFW, defamatory, rude, reckless to the community, etc.

We expect everyone to be respectful of other commenters. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's no need to act like a jerk.

Use your own words (don't copy and paste from elsewhere), be honest and don't pretend to be someone (or something) you're not.

Our commenting section is self-policing, so if you see a comment that violates our ground rules, flag it (mouse over to the far right of the commenter's name until you see the flag symbol and click that), then we'll review it.